John Ellis v. DHL Express, Incorpo, 633 F.3d 522

DHL Express announced on Nov 10, 2008 that it would stop U.S. domestic shipping on Jan 30, 2009, closing five Chicagoland facilities and causing mass layoffs.
Union Local 705 negotiated severance agreements for drivers and office workers, effective Dec 9, 2008, with options including a ten-week plan or four-week plans; decision deadlines were Dec 11–22, 2008 for drivers and remaining staff, with some later deadlines for office workers.
Total of 506 employees signed General Waivers and Releases in exchange for severance pay and benefits; 319 drivers took the ten-week plan, 187 took four-week plans; others retained recall rights and could sue.
Ellis and Price, DHL drivers and Local 705 members, did not participate in the union plans and sued (on behalf of a class) under WARN Act seeking back pay and benefits; district court granted summary judgment for DHL and Deutsche Post.
District court held WARN Act inapplicable due to: no single site constituting a plant closing for all facilities, no 33% mass layoff, and voluntariness of severance waivers undermining counting of those workers as involuntary terminations.
This appeals court reviews de novo; voluntariness of the departures is dispositive given the WARN Act’s voluntary departure exception.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the union severance exits voluntary departures under WARN Act?	Ellis/Price contend exits were involuntary due to economic pressure.	DHL argued packages were voluntary and releases valid; agency interpretations support voluntariness absent coercion.	Voluntariness not proven; court finds no coercion and affirms voluntariness.
Do the 506 severance departures count toward WARN Act thresholds?	If counted as employment losses, WARN liability may arise; if not, no liability.	Voluntary departures should not count; releases foreclose WARN liability.	Count is dispositive but resolved by voluntariness; no separate ruling needed here beyond voluntariness.
Did the five Chicago facilities together constitute a plant closing or mass layoff?	Treat collectively to trigger WARN under the plant closing/mass layoff provisions.	No single site and no 33% cut at any individual site; thresholds not met.	Court upholds district court’s findings that thresholds were not met at individual sites; plant closing/mass layoff not established.
Was it proper for the district court to grant summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Post (alter ego) sua sponte?	Defendant Deutsche Post should have been active in opposition; discovery limited.	Claims against Deutsche Post were derivative of DHL’s; sufficient notice and common issues existed.	District court did not err; summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Post affirmed.

Spivey v. Adaptive Mktg. LLC, 622 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of summary-judgment standards)
Phason v. Meridian Rail Corp., 479 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 2007) (bright-line WARN Act thresholds; applicability)
Henn v. Nat’l Geographic Soc’y, 819 F.2d 824 (7th Cir. 1987) (voluntariness factors for early retirement offers)
Joe v. First Bank Sys., Inc., 202 F.3d 1067 (8th Cir. 2000) (short window to decide does not necessarily render it involuntary)
Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, 199 F.3d 796 (5th Cir. 2000) (considerations of waivers in employment claims)
United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (S. Ct. 2001) (agency interpretations carry weight in statutory construction)
Acequia, Inc. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 226 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 2000) (agency interpretations and voluntary departure considerations)
Judson Atkinson Candies, Inc. v. Latini-Hohberger Dhimantec, 529 F.3d 371 (7th Cir. 2008) (district court sua sponte grant of summary judgment permissible with notice)
Malak v. Associated Physicians, Inc., 784 F.2d 277 (7th Cir. 1986) (early authorities on WARN Act interpretations)